Third World? What Happened to the Second?

We all know what “Third World” countries are, but where did that specific terminology come from? Why “third?” I"ve never heard a reference to a “second world country?” Assuming that modern, industrialized countries are “first world countries,” and impoverished countires lacking what we would consider basic services are “third world,” what constitutes a “second world country?”

Originally, it was the Communist bloc countries that constituted the “Second World.” Soviet Russia, the rest of the Warsaw Pact, and maybe China although I can’t remember off-hand.

I’d have to look up precisely who coined this term, though IIRC it dates to the 1960’s.

Naturally, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, this terminology isn’t used much anymore. Back when I was interested in world economic development issues, “Developing” versus “Developed” countries were the most often used terms… sometimes you’ll hear “Lesser Developed Countries” (LDCs) but that term isn’t very well liked anymore.

“Second World” was used to refer to the old communist eastern bloc. It never really gained the same currency of usage as the other two terms.

Cecil did a column on the subject.

Cecil wrote

With all due respect, I’ve never heard of Capitalist countries referred to as “First World”, nor of Communist countries referred to as "“Second World”.

Has anyone else heard of such? Any quotes or citations?

Rather, two phrases that I have heard all my life are “Old World” (old civilizations in Europe and Asia) and “New World” (younger civilations in the Americas).

That is a pattern which I think “Third World” fits into very easily. Until the past half-century or so (creation of the UN might be a good demarcation point), the more-developed countries had hardly a clue that the less-developed countries even existed. Once things developed so that the Old World and New World were forced to begrudgingly concede the existence of the less-developed countries, the term “Third World” was a natural.

That’s what I think, anyway.

I’ve certainly heard of such, that’s exactly what I said in my reply. Twenty seconds on Google turned up these two cites:

http://www.netscout.net/oneworld/third_world_countries.htm
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/General/ThirdWorld_def.html

And here’s the Google search that found them, you can find all the cites you want if those two are inadequate.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q="third+world"+communist+coined

It’s a nice theory, but as always the facts tend to get in the way. Unless you’ve got something better to prove the Perfect Master wrong…

While “Old World” and “New World” are indeed used in reference to Europe vs. the Americas, it is in a different context from that in which the term “Third World” was coined.

Although in everyday speech we referred to “Western” or “Capitalist” vs. “Communist” nations, it was labeling them “First World” and “Second World,” respectively, that ties in with “Third World.” Possibly the term “Third World” came first, recognizing that those countries belonged to neither of the other two groups, and “First” and “Second” worlds were a back-formation. But “Third World” has nothing to do with “Old” and “New” worlds–that’s a whold different criterion.

What we were told in the ecology class I took, was that it had to do with the population dynamics.

In a third-world country, both the birth and death rates are high, so the population remains the same size.

Then, someone rich and benevolent moves in and begins to administer medical care, food, sewage. The death rate plummets immediately. However, the birth rate remains high, because lowering it is a major social project that can take generations to implement. The country is now a second world country. Its population soars and life gets very, very bad.

If the country can survive this stage without collapsing back into the third world, then eventually its birth rate is lowered to match its death rate, and the population size holds steady again. By this time hospitals, utilities, and agriculture are firmly in place (lowering the death rate) as well as schools, technology, and whatever else it takes to lower the birth rate. The country is now first world.

This appears to be very much at odds with other answers given. I’m definitely willing to cede to the rest of you, though maybe my answer is incidentally correct.

Okay, okay, I guess I can’t argue with the evidence. But please read the OP again.

Several posters here have (deliberately or not) given the impression that “First World” and “Second World” were common expressions (for US-aligned and USSR-aligned countries, respectively) at one point in time.

Would it be fair to clearly and unequivocally answer the OP by saying that before Sauvy made up the “Third World”, the terms “First World” and “Second World” had not been used at all?

As others have noted, “the First World” was the capitalist world, and the “Second World” was the Soviet Bloc.

Initially, the “third world” was another name for all the unaligned countries. Yugoslavia was prominent among these. But over time, the “Third World” ceased meaning all unaligned countries and became a term for impoverished countries of Africa and Asia (and, to a lesser extent, South America), most of which had been colonies of European nations. That’s the definiton commonly used now, so of course, Yugoslavia is no longer regarded as pasrt of the Third World.

I’ve read it. The question, as I’m reading it, is two-fold: Where does the phrase “Third World” come from? What is a “Second World” nation? Cecil’s column more than adequately answers both questions.

** And they were, unless you’ve got some definition of “commonly” that I’ve never heard of. Read Cecil’s article and the various cites I’ve provided you with.

Um, I guess so. As Cecil and the cites I’ve provided demonstrate, Sauvy, or someone, coined the term in the 1950’s. No, “First and Second” worlds were not in usage before then to refer to industrialized western nations and the Eastern Bloc respectively.

But the “clear and unequivocal” answer to the questions the OP is asking are:

1.) We’re not sure who coined the term, Sauvy is the most often cited however.
2.) The Second World, as used in this terminology, is the Eastern Bloc.

You can make up whatever definitions and etymologies you like, but these are the facts.

Sauvy, when using this expression was refering to a book extremely well-known in France “Qu’est-ce que le tiers-Etat?” “What is the Third Estate?” , published in the 1780’s, comparing the situation of the priviledged classes and of the Third Estate and which was announcing the upcoming storm of the french revolution.

By making this reference, which is quite obvious for a relatively educated frenchman (as much as a reference to the founding fathers would be for an american, perhaps) , Sauvy implied that given the concentration of wealth and power in the two blocks (communist and western countries), which were draining the ressources of an impoverished third world representing the majority of the world population (and steadily growing at this time), a similar outcome (a direct confrontation between the affluent north and the impoverished south, and a collapse of the world order as it existed at his time) was likely. Remember that it was the time when various independantist, anti-imperialist and non-aligned movements were blooming in the “third world”.

easiest way to think of it:

First world: Anti-communist
Second world: Communist
Third world: Developing countries (mostly in africa) which were no longer just colonies and had to develop their own governments.

Or at least thats what it was supposed to mean.

Thanks, desdinova. I concede defeat.

clairobscur got it right. The term “third world” was not coined as a reference to a “first” and “second” worlds but as a reference to the third estate (the poor) in 18th century France. Only after that and as a consequence the terms first and second world were invented to go along and they never really gained the same level of usage.

“First World” is a common expression, maybe not as common as “Third World.” I’m surprised you’ve never heard it.

desinova, “less developed countries” is often used by those who want to be more precise, such as international organizations. It’s contrasted with “least developed countries.” It makes sense, since there’s a big difference between Brazil and Sierra Leone, for example.

“Industrialized countries” has been used in place of “First World,” though it’s less common these days.

It’s certainly an often used phrase… but in my own experience a lot of citizens of LDCs take offense to it. The more “PC” terms I’ve heard used are developed versus developing (versus non-developing). One of my ol’ professors of international trade, originally from Nigeria, insisted on these terms and would blow up at us if we used the dreaded term LDC.

You’ll find both terminologies, I think, in articles and reports from groups such as the WTO. “Third World”, on the other hand, is pretty rare these days, at least without the quotation marks.